Re6ecca wrote:There's photo's of girls all over the site, can easily be found via google with the name of the site.

See, you didn't even clarify when you were responding, cuz I thought you were responding to something specifically related to the OP, not a google search on teen models, and I didn't see the name of the site in the OP. (the terms true teen babes on google could pull up a huge number of things and not even specific to the site he's talking bout).

Marc... you ever opened up to an underwear section for kids in a JC Penny or sears catalog? Kind of the same thing. Not the same as a "Glamour" or seductive shoot, unless you're already a pedophile in which case a sears catalog would be alluring enough.

These models aren't posing sexually as these girls on this particular site. They are in positions which i would class to be sexy, wearing little strings. Hence the name "True Teen Babes."

Re6ecca wrote:These models aren't posing sexually as these girls on this particular site. They are in positions which i would class to be sexy, wearing little strings. Hence the name "True Teen Babes."

See, you didn't even clarify when you were responding, cuz I thought you were responding to something specifically related to the OP, not a google search on teen models, and I didn't see the name of the site in the OP. (the terms true teen babes on google could pull up a huge number of things and not even specific to the site he's talking bout).

David Baxter wrote:...With that in mind how can a site like true teen babes not be illegal? I thought they shut it down. I ran across a mention of it in another post so I took a look. It features underage teens in lingerie and glamour poses.

That's not illegal? Am I missing something?

Ya got to remember that it would have to be proven to be 'child porn' to a courts jury before anything could really be done to elminate the website or convict people for illegal activities.

In order to be found guilty, the prosecution must prove the guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and each member of the jury must agree.

The defense can easily argue that the same type of photos are used in mainstream advertising every day (if I remember correctly, they were defendants in a court case and successfully used that defense).

I'm not condoning that website nor defending it... just stating the reality of the legal system.

All of the Teen Glamour Models that appear on TrueTeenBabes do so with the full written permission of their parent(s) or legal guardian. Copies of those Parental Permission Agreements and Model Release forms are on file at the office of Andrew J. Contiguglia of the law firm of Contiguglia, P.C. and other legal counsel.

The images within this publication are no different than those found in magazines at your local grocery store, including the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, Maxim, FHM, Gear, Jane and others -- all of which have featured models under the age of 18 at one time or another in strikingly similar photographs.

This publication does not contain full nudity, any type of child pornography, or "sexually explicit conduct" as defined within the official Federal Law concerning Child Pornography.

Furthermore, because the free speech & expression exhibited by this publication, our photographer and our models is "neither obscene, nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the protection of the First Amendment" Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 122 S.CT 1389. That is the law, as set down in April of 2002 by the United States Supreme Court. Clearly the entire content of this Internet publication are protected speech.

Got a point though, outside of the intent of the viewers (which you can't prosecute the content provider for), there's no legal basis that I noticed that they could be criminally charged.

SayCheeZ! wrote:Ya got to remember that it would have to be proven to be 'child porn' to a courts jury before anything could really be done to elminate the website or convict people for illegal activities.

If I am not mistaken, I think a Judge can order an injunction to block the site (Via their host) pending a trial/investigation. Kinda like how they can freeze someone's funds pending investigation, or block the sale of a book.

Marc... you ever opened up to an underwear section for kids in a JC Penny or sears catalog? Kind of the same thing. Not the same as a "Glamour" or seductive shoot, unless you're already a pedophile in which case a sears catalog would be alluring enough.

The OP posted the name of a site in his OP. If you do a search for the name it comes up first on the list. If you click on the girls names it takes you to a series of photos of the girls.

Some of the images show the girls in sheer lingerie and thongs. If you click through several other pages of photos there is other girls with unbuttoned shirts just barely covering the nipples, one girl has a scarf around her neck using it to cover her nipples and is wearing a thong, another girl is wearing a short shirt that ties in the front but it is untied and she is pulling the ties downwards to open the shirt but not expose nipples.

I can't be positive, but one of the images even appears to have a little nipple showing...on a 13 year old (Regina Lynn). It is in the larger photo of her set on the left of the page.

There is a 14 year old with a sheer fabric over her with a hint of nipple showing through the fabric. The same girl also has another one that she is wearing a sheer shirt with nipples showing through it.

Also, the site specifically says that the girls are under the age of 18 and that their parents have signed a release. They also have their lawyer listed on there to show that they for some reason are a legal business.

Studio Selby wrote:Change the word "bra" to "swimsuit seperates". Now is there a problem? C'mon - 14 year old girls wear less at the beach!

Seen em wear bout that much or less around town during the summer. You know there's actually fishnet socking and other garments meant for holloween costumes for kids? Wonder who though that was marketable

The biggest problem with the site is the intended audience that it's marketed towards. Course however you can't clearly prove intent in that sense as would be legally applicable.

Victoria's secret is intended to sell those products to women or teen girls, not turn guys on to the models. (ie: in the site's case, the models are the product).

ei Total Productions wrote:However, Florida just changed their law to target sites like his. It is the first such law in the country. The ACLU immediately went to court so we won't know the actual status for some time.

Probably a variation of the modified 2257 regulation, that would criminalize even 'suggested' intent on being sexually oriented (ie: fully clothed, and just 'looking' at you in a seductive way)

David Baxter wrote:I know we've had millions of discussions on what is legal/illegal, appropriate/inappropriate for underage models. I thought I understood this topic pretty well.

My understanding is that if the model is underage and the photos can reasonably be interpreted as sexually suggestive then they could be considered child porn. A position I agree with by the way. And just so we don't get caught in the nudity=porn thing I think there can be nudity without pornography, and there can be pornography without nudity.

With that in mind how can a site like true teen babes not be illegal? I thought they shut it down. I ran across a mention of it in another post so I took a look. It features underage teens in lingerie and glamour poses.

That's not illegal? Am I missing something?

Florida just passed a law, in response to "true teen babes" that makes "sexually sugestive" images of minors illegal, just about a month ago...

I think we'd actually have to see the language of the new law. Since I noticed there was nothing on the site (that I remembered) like ass towards camera bent over, or spread eagle or anything else. Maybe that was the limit of the language because anything else would seem too vague.

Also... is there server based in the US? (For a long while according to a article I read bout the FBI and such doing a major sting operation, Japan's servers used to be able to host child porn, was like up until the late 90s, until I think there was some diplomatic agreement pushing to make it illegal in Japan... course I could have totally read it wrong).

DJantz wrote:You would think with all the advice thrown around here they think they are experts. Take a look: "I thought...., No, it is like this... no, you are wrong, it is illegal..." See what I mean?

But its a totally different thing to actually say you're an expert

Course if you say you're right and everyone else is wrong regardless of what they say, then you're just being a bigoted asshole hehe.

If you have received an e-mail or visited a website that contains pornography, here are a few things to remember:

Child pornography is illegal to produce, possess or distribute under both Florida Statute 827.071 and Federal law, U.S. Code 18 Part 1, Chapter 110 Section 2252

Many websites appear to contain child pornography, but in reality contain "Child Erotica"(i.e. children photographed nude or partially nude posed in a manner that does not meet the criteria for sexual conduct, see below). Child Erotica is not illegal.

Florida Statute 847.001(3) defines child pornography as "any image depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct." Sexual conduct is defined as "actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, or sadomasochistic abuse; actual lewd exhibition of the genitals; actual physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if such person is a female, breast with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of either party; or any act or conduct which constitutes sexual battery or simulates that sexual battery is being or will be committed."...

Ironically, I hear about adult females getting cited for wearing a g-string at the beach in Florida, but according to this article it's pretty safe for a minor to get practically nekkid for internet pictures.

SayCheeZ! wrote:Ironically, I hear about adult females getting cited for wearing a g-string at the beach in Florida, but according to this article it's pretty safe for a minor to get practically nekkid for internet pictures.

Not just practically, but actually 'nekkid'.

My guess is they don't go that far despite the increased revue it may bring in, because the parents already allowing their teens on the site probably draw the line there (or most of them do anyways).